Marginal Adaptation of Self Adhesive Bulk-fill Resin Composite vs Conventional Resin Composite and Resin Modified Glass- ionomer: A Comparative Study.

Ibrahim, Basant Saad; Elkholany, Naglaa R; Enab, Tawakol Ahmed; Zaghloul, Nadia Mohamed

doi:10.21608/edj.2024.303452.3111

	Marginal Adaptation of Self Adhesive Bulk-fill Resin Composite vs Conventional Resin Composite and Resin Modified Glass- ionomer: A Comparative Study.
Egyptian Dental Journal
Volume 70, Issue 4 - Serial Number 5, October 2024, Page 3879-3886 PDF (794.03 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/edj.2024.303452.3111
View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Basant Saad Ibrahim ¹; Naglaa R Elkholany ²; Tawakol Ahmed Enab ³; Nadia Mohamed Zaghloul ⁴
¹MSc Student, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry,Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
²Assistant Professor, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University
³Professor, Department of Production and Mechanical Design Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Egypt
⁴Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry,Faculty of Dentistry,Mansoura University,Mansoura,Egypt
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the marginal adaptation of teeth restored with three types of materials (self-adhesive bulkfill resin Composite, conventional resin-composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer restorations). Materials and methods: Three different restorative materials; Self‌-adhesive bulk-fill hybrid resin composite (surefil one, dentsplay sirona, Konstanz,Germany), Resin modified glass ionomer (fuji,, GC ,corp, Tokyo, Japan ) and Resin-based composite (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE), were used in this study. A total of 36 premolars were classified into three groups (n= 12) according to the restorative system used. The samples after being kept for a day in distilled water, were thermocycled for 500 cycles (5-55 °C) with dwell period for 15 seconds, and then the specimens were examined using a Scanning electron microscope. All test data were tabulated, and Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software by one way ANOVA test (p value <0.05). Results: one-way ANOVA test was used to determine the effect of study variables (materials) and their interaction on the marginal adaptation values (p < 0.05), which revealed that none of the study variables had a significant effect on the marginal adaptation results (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, Self-adhesive bulk fill (surefil one) and RMGIC (fuji) showed multiple gaps in their interface with cavity walls especially at gingival margin. But conventional resin-based composite (filtek Z250) performed better in marginal adaptation test in all thirds of the class II cavity with no significant difference.
Keywords
KEYWORDS: Resin composites; Dental marginal adaptation; self adhesive bulk fill; Thermal cycles


Statistics Article View: 227 PDF Download: 143